My answer to Jeff Lowder's Answer to me on His Six Points That Disconfirm Theism

I recently exchanged views with Jeff Lowder (secular web) on his secular outpost blog. He had a piece about six observations from science that disconfirm theism. I answered him on this blog. Now he has made his reply over on secular outpost:"Scientific Evidence Against God’s Existence: A Reply to Joe Hinman."
(October 9, 2015 by Jeffery Jay Lowder).



(1) You expect theological explanation for things with no theological significance. Aspects of science may be real interesting and crucial for humanity but they are not of theological significance so no reason to expect that. They are just neutral facts, that's the crux of the whole deal.

(2) unless you show contradiction and competition between religion and science there is no reason to expect theism to explain anything scientific.Theism or any othyer sort of God belief.

(3 going back to our argument about Bayes and it comes in here. you cannot establish a basis of probability for or against God.

a. no basis for setting a prior;that will be colored by personal beliefs.

b. There is also no new information coming in n God.

When you try to assert explanations or assume their are none for God's actions you just beg thye question.

(4)He gives unequal weight to the various explanations. At least doing so isa danger of this kind of analysis. example: say for argument sake that Fine Turning is best explained by belief in God. But then the fact that I didn't get to be a banker (the great tragedy of my life) is best explained by naturalism. Then I'm going to be a naturalist because if there was a God surely he would have made e a banker!

I've cleared away a great deal of material because it seemed like minutia. A lot of "you said, I said, here's what I meant." That stuff often bogs us down.. Jeff never did come to terms with the issue of contradiction but put up smoke screen by accusing me of not understanding the form of argument. Most of that comes down to probability as the only valid measurer (I take that to be his view). Everything he says he brings back to probability but he couches the argument in terms of best explanation. which is abductive and not based upon probability.

Probability is induction: see Peter Lipton, Inference to The Best Explanation. New York: Routledge, International Library of Philosophy, 2nd ed.,2004.

The distinction he makes between "best explanation" and "better" I find trivial. We know we are comparing between his view and mine no need to worry about all the other possibilities that we will never consider.

In reply to my first argument, he asks, “Why can’t God create the universe with time as opposed to in time?” But that argument doesn’t claim that God cannot create the universe with time. Rather, it simply claims that the universe’s beginning with time is more probable on naturalism than on theism.

Why? Because God can't create the universe with time? No reason is given it's truth by stipulation. Upon what could you possibly base the prior except a bias against belief?

Again the over all point to my whole thing was that we should not expect belief in God to answer questions of science because science and religion are not in competition. The two outlooks deal with different areas, with different magisteraia.

Similarly, in response to the argument from biological evolution, he writes, “No reason why God could not use evolution as a mechanism.” Again,Moreover, Hinman points out that a finding from experimental science is logically compatible with theism and, again, I reply that he’s missed the point of explanatory arguments in general and this argument in particular.

Explanatory is not probability, not necessarily. I did evidential reasoning for four years of college debate and I both beat and got my ass kicked by some of the top teams in the country.. Abduction is not induction (probability is induction). One bench mark of a best explanation is simplicity, but that does not require probability. Moreover, you still have no basis for setting a prior probabili8ty of God from which to calculate. It seems your judgments are guided not by logic or fact in relation to assessing what God would do.

The assertions that naturalism explains it better are ideological, no reasons given. I think you are assuming that if God was real he would be companionate and thus stop extinctions. I'm betting you wont mention my soteriological drama answer. Naturalism probably8 has a more parsimonious explaination but it has no need to explain higher motivations. That of course can't be construed to mean there are none. .

Yes, God could have used evolution. God also could have used other methods to create life besides evolution, methods which are logically incompatible with naturalism.

That seems like a meaningless statement. First because you assume level of knowledge about the universe that humans do not know yet. You assert that God could use other methods but that assumes knowledge of God you don't have. Secondly you assume a dichotomy between natural and spiritu7al (I think you really mean physical) that is meaningless. You are privileging "natural."

Prior to examining the scientific evidence for evolution, theists had good reason to predict that evolution is false. In contrast, if naturalism is true, evolution pretty much has to be true. (I’ll say a little bit more about this in a moment.)

you are arguing from analogy and you are historically wrong. Ministers asserted Darwin helped the Gospel as often as they assumed he hurt it. 4. Hinman seems to misunderstand what I mean by “theism.” He writes: One other preliminary point. This is not an attack on Jeff. The assumptions he seems to makes behind each of these points is that theism us [sic] represented by fundamentalism of the YEC kind. I’, [sic] basic liberal or perhaps neo-Orthodox, so these things don’t pertain to what I think of as theism. I understand he was answering a creationist so of course he makes that assumption. Not a criticism.

Contrary to what Hinman claims, however, I don’t think theism is “represented by fundamentalism of the YEC kind.” The idea that Hinman brings YEC into the discussion strikes me as odd, since nowhere in my post did I even mention the age of the universe. I think it’s charitable to assume that what Hinman really means is that I think theism is “represented by fundamentalism of the anti-evolution kind,” i.e., the kind of theist who denies what Purdue University philosopher Paul Draper calls the “genealogical” and “genetic” theses (see here for definitions and references). This interpretation would be more understandable since I do appeal to evolution against theism. He’s wrong to conclude, however, that my appeal to evolution presupposes that theism = fundamentalist, anti-evolution theism. (More on that in just a moment.)

first I was using YEC in more of an iconic way rather than literal. To me that view epitomizes ignorance and literalism. Secondly several things you say argue for my point: for You say "I do appeal to evolution against theism." That implies that you think they are competing or antithetical. You intimate that only argue that against anti-evolutionists, but you don't make that distinction until you arev pressed. I assume that since evolution is indicated by the evidence then God must have used it. I'm not seeking reasons to give up belief. They don't contradict because they don't compete for the same space. I don't see science as my salvation from big mean God. I'm not saying you do. I think you are more sophisticated than that. Yet you seem to see evolution and religion as antithetical. I do not. you have not demonstrate why we should ask religion to explain things that are not in its domain?

In fact, following Draper (see references here), I define theism as follows: supernatural person: a person that is not part of nature but can affect nature. Examples of supernatural persons include God, angels, Satan, demons, ghosts, etc.

OK not insulting you. I think you views are by and large sophisticated. This is not one of them. Angels and demons hu? that you think that's supernatural tells me you do think religion is about fundamentalism. this is pretty antiquated. that idea of SN comes from the enlightenment. see my essay "the original Christian Concept of the SN." Please take time to read it.

theism: the hypothesis that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person (God) who created the universe.

(1) the omnis are not valued in modern theology. Omnipotent is only used once in the bible (pantocrator) and there it doesn't mean all powerful but powerful in all venues. Not so much about ability as jurisdiction. (2) of course God would be morally perfect he's not flesh and blood so no struggle with fallen nature. His character is the standard of the good. (3) God is the personal itself but he's not a person. Like water molecules are not wet. Personhood is a social identity. Persons have personalities and personalities have hang ups. God has neither. a fourth one just occurred to me (4) you think belief in God = theism. it doesn't. Psul Tillich was a Panentheist. I tend in that direction too.

Since my definition of theism is so generic, it is obviously logically compatible with a belief in theistic evolution. So why, then, do I argue that evolution is evidence against theism? Hinman needs to read the section, “Evaluating Auxiliary Hypotheses,” in my essay, “Basic Structure of My Evidential Arguments.” If both God and life exist, then God either directly created life (aka so-called “special creationism”) or He indirectly created life (through either guided evolution ["theistic evolution"] or unguided evolution ["Darwinism"]). These options are auxiliary hypotheses to theism. As Draper has shown, the auxiliary hypothesis of special creationism is antecedently much more probable on theism than either the auxiliary hypothesis of theistic evolution or the auxiliary hypothesis of Darwinism. (Skip down to the section “Draper’s Defense of A” in this post.)

I would like to know upon what basis he concluded that. Sorry Jeff this is the kind of thinking that leads me to say you see Christianity as fundamentalism. No major theologian in the world today would agree with what you said. you would be laughed out of Perkins community lunch if you said that there (and they welcome everyone). I mean by that you mean non-evolutionary or "special" creation is more likely to be what God would do, that is absurd. If you mean more likely to be what the bible teaches of course it is it was written before modern science. But what the Bible teaches and what people think it teaches are two different things.

5. I’m going to stop my reply to Hinman here, at least for now. I’ve left some of his objections unaddressed, but for now I’ll just say this. I think that if you follow the links in my original post to my other posts which defend these arguments in much greater length, you’ll find that I’ve already addressed most, if not all, of his remaining objections. - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/10/09/scientific-evidence-against-gods-existence-a-reply-to-joe-hinman/#disqus_thread

the major points again

(1) You expect theological explanation for things with no theological significance. Aspects of science may be real interesting and crucial for humanity but they are not of theological significance so no reason to expect that. that's the crux of the whole deal.

(2) unless you show contradiction and competition between religion and science there is no reason to expect theism to explain anything scientific. (3 going back to our argument about Bayes and it comes in here. you cannot establish a basis of probability for or against God.

a. no basis for setting a prior,that will be colored by personal

(4)He gives unequal weight to the various explanations. At least doing so isa danger of this kind of analysis. example: say for argument sake that Fine Turning is best explained by belief in God. But then the fact that I didn't get to be a banker (the great tragedy of my life) is best explained by naturalism. Then I'm going to be a naturalist because if there was a God surely he would have made e a banker!

The Atheist Standards: If Universe Needs a Creator...?

If the universe needs a creator why doesn't God? The geniuses on carm became fascinated with that one the other day. They had a couple of threads goofing off with typical atheist misunderstanding saying things like "the universe needs a creator than God does too." When Chrsitians say God is necessary and the universe is contingent, they say "how do you know God is necessary?" When you say  "that's part of the definition of God," they say 'O you are defining God into existence." Of course that's stupid since it's not saying "God msut exist because I can write the term 'necessary' in the same sentence with the term 'God.'" It's saying saying I know God is necessary becuase that's what I believe in, when I say the term "G-O-D" I am saying "the necessary eternal aspect of being." Saying that is not what makes it real, it's what defines the reality I'm discussing. Knowing that is why the question about if the universe needs a cause why doesn't God is answered by saying God is necessary and the universe is contingent.

Here is the post I made to answer it with:

People are still making the mistake of asking "If the universe needs a cause why don't God need a cause?"

the simplest terms: the universe is the kind of thing that needs a cause and God is the final cause of all things so final cause can't need a cause becuase it is the cause of all causes. If the final cause had a cause it would not be the final cause. So if God had a cause he could not be God.

when we say God we are saying "that which does not need a cause."

why do I say the universe is the kind of thing that does need a cause?

(1) It is a connection of contingencies. The universe is not a single monolith it's a collection of things, all of them contingent.

(2)The universe is naturalistic, all naturalistic things seem to have cause based upon 100% observation (yes even of QM particles--they are coming out other QM particles).

(3) It's temporal. it has a beginning. It starts to exist that means there's a "time" or a four coordinate "beyond" even horizon (big bang) at which there is no universe. Not so with God. God is eternal must always be.

this mistake is getting at the basis of the whole fundamentalist concept of God (which the atheist pattern their straw God after) that is as the big man in the sky.

(4) God is being itself, not a big man so as the ground of being God can't have a cause since that cause would have to be part of being and thus would need grounding in the ground of being of which it creates. That makes no sense. that's saying the effect would be responsible for the cause.

Thus is seems only logical to assume that God doesn't need a cause but the universe does. four reasons.

 So let the fun begin. One guy "America" kept saying "you didn't give any reasons." As you can see I gave four reasons. Then after pointing that out about 10 times he kept saying "you have no supporting material." In the course in quote from Hawking, Paul Davies (a major physicist) John Polkinghorne (another major physicist) Sten Odenwald, (a NASA astronomer) (not major but highly  qualified as an expert on cosmology).  I had no supported material? Typical clowns of the message boards. Let's look at a couple of the better attempts:

HillyBilly (dig that screen name)

 One of the most prominent living Christian philosophers of religion isn't a member of the set "the whole Christian tradition"?

 By that me means Richard Swinburne who argued against scholastic based concepts of necessity. I said

Meta:

 I've heard that lecture I was not impressed. Now dont' get me wrong, gobs of respect for Swinburne but not in that issue. I thought he totally dodged what the real issue was about and basically made little sense.

Certainly Swinburne will never say God needed a creator. that not in any way what he was saying.

 He actually tried to argue that Swinburne said God needs a creator. Of cousre he never said that. I heard the lecture where he argued against necessity and he's using that in a specific specialized context and he certainly never said God needs a creator. Anyone saying that would be blaspheming becuase that would mean God is not God there's a higher God than God. I quoted a book reviewer who explains that he did not mean that.


 Originally Posted by HillyBilly

He said God is not in any way necessary. That means he things God is either contingent or impossible. Since he's one of the most prominent Christian philosophers, we can eliminate 'impossible'. So, one of the most prominent Christian philosophers says God is contingent. So, yeah, you're wrong about "the whole of the Christian tradition" agreeing with you.

 Meta:

(1) I said at the time I heard it he was wrong.

(2) he did not say God needs a cause

(3) I doubt seriously that he would say God is contingent. I you and note atheist just more of what he was saying and not seek to understand the sense in which he spoke.

anyone stating that God needs a cause would be dumped out of a Christian university if he had a theoretical teaching position.

that would be the same as saying that there is a higher God than God. no Christian can say that.


a book reviewer explains your mistake. Swinburne doesn't mean that in the sense of God being created or needing a creator.

http://jwwartick.com/2011/01/29/itg-swinburne/

"1) There are many coherent ways to envision the future as possible knowledge; 2) A timeless view of God would definitely entail foreknowledge, because all time would be equally present to such a deity. Second, Swinburne’s view of God differs in that he believes God’s existence is contingent, not necessary (he does believe that God is necessary in the sense that his existence does not cease–the necessity/contingence is the difference between modern and Aristotelian contingency–thanks to Tim McGrew and Chris Reese for pointing this out). Again, I disagree, but I find Swinburne’s view coherent."

 Hilly dodged the issue by just asking "If he's not necessary and not impossible what's left" [but contingent]? As though I had not quoted anything. He also continued this line in a couple of more posts without ever acknowledging my quote. This leads me to believe that he didn't read the quote.


 Now we went in a different direction arguing about the contingency of the universe. God is necessary but the universe is contingent, so the universe needs a cause and God does not.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

then how would it make the universe necessary if necessary means don't need cause?

 Since the universe needs a cause, which is easy to establish (no something from nothing).

 

HRG:

But "necessary" does not mean "doesn't need cause". Assume a necessary being B, which necessarily causes the effect E. E is as necessary as B (that's why the concept of "necessary being" is highly dubious), but needed B as a cause.

OTOH, a brute fact is neither necessary nor caused.

 The reason he says this is becuase he only recognizes "necessary" in the sense of logical necessity, truth by definition (all husbands are married men).  That's just a matter of philosophical ignorance. The notion of a causal form of necessity has long been established and it's used in that context a quite commonly. That's especially true in the cosmological arguemnt. It's seen in John Hick's The Many Faced Argument. I have numerous disputes with HRG where he just referees to recognize that. He was making that same mistake when he first came on CARM 10 years ago and he's still making it after being proved to several thousand times.

 That's another thing they they've started doing. When you disprove one of their stupid ideas, they come back and "you are corrected on this before," ignoring your answer. I think the thing is they really don't read answers. New atheism is based upon ignorance and it thrives by a quasi brain wash technqiue that includes not ever considering the ideas of the other side in any light by that of mocking and ridicule.

 The rest of it is pretty  much the same all the way down.

That Trick Atehists do With Evidence

"There's no proof for your God," this is the refrain perennially voiced by atheists on every message board every single day. J.D. Walters, on the CADRE blog, has done a piece comparing this problem to smoking. He acknowledges that he is sometimes dissatisfied with the level of proof, but there is proof enough that smoking is harmful and people who know that it is can't or wont stop. I find this very non apt as an analogy. The problem is people who understand that smoking is harmful either, want to stop and can't or they don't want to stop but do realize that it's harmful. Few smokers actually still believe it's not harmful. Atheists are not exactly in this same predicament. Some atheist want to believe in God but struggle because they only want to bleieve on their terms, that is if the evidence is overwhelming and they can't argue with it. Most atheists have bought into the line that there is no scientific proof for God. That is a crucial draw back because once they accept he premise that scinece is the only form of knowledge then they never have to believe. So the atheist opinion leaders construct this huge ideolgoical edifice around the concept that science is the only way to know what's real, and there's no scientific evidence for God so there can't be a good or you can't ever find him so it must not be a big deal. That's not like smokers. If we examine the edifice of that ideological construct we soon realize it's a trick and crumbles.

The point is a lot more complex. The atheist assertion the evidence  isn't good enough is based entirely upon their refusal to accept the  perimeters of evidence that theists accept. We have two different worlds  going. Theists and atheists live in different worlds. Atheists think about the Question of God as just adding a  fact to the universe. It's just one more thin, scinece is the only form  of knowledge, if there is no absolute scientific proof so strong they  can't argue whit it then it's not proved and it's worth thinking about  because the only form knowledge has to be absolute and obvious. They  want to be totally and utterly forced to believe by the power of  absolute proof.

God is not just adding a fact to the universe.  The God embedded universe is not just a universe exactly like the  atheists except it has God in it. It's a universe where subjective human  experience is the only form of human experience, where science is not  the only form of knowledge, where inner life counts too. If I'm right about God, then God doesn't want one to find "him" through absolute scientific evidence that can't be refitted. If that were the case God would be subjugated to human understanding. If we could have scientific evidence that proved God then God would have to be objectified and we would be in control because as the subjects we control the data and the knowledge that gives us any object of our scrutiny. That's why reductionism works by the game of losing phenomena. The whole point of reducing is to eliminate aspects that you can't control. God is not fool, and God would be a fool if he allowed himself to become an object of scientific proof, because to do he would be competency at the disposal of humanity in terms of setting the perimeters for understanding. The way God does it we have to go to him. We have to surrender our wills we have to accept that God is the boss, these are things atheists cannot stand thinking about doing. That's really what atheists are in a sense, people ho refuse to give up the will to God. I know that's going to upset a lot of atheist readers, if its not true why can't they accept the parameters of the search in the heart?

Every time an atheist tells me "I tried searching in my heart and God never never never answered" when I push I find that what he really means is "I tried real hard to do it the way some human being told me I had to." What I have never seen them actually mean is "I really gave up my will." All the people I know who are deeply spiritual and have true and meaningful relationships with God tell me they have given up their wills to God. I think it's an insight of the noetic quality of spiritual experience that we understand intuitively to seek God in the heart means to give up the will to God, giving up our desires, giving up our insistence that God come to us and present himself on our terms. That's what atheists are really saying they want God to do when they demand total absolute scientific evidence that so so strong they can't argue with it.

They keep trading on this conundrum. They keep saying "there's no proof, there's no scientific poof." What they mean is "there's proof that fits my parameters that I control he data and set up the understanding of the God phenomena my way so I will still be in charge." You can see this clearly in the actual insistence for scientific data. It is not unreasonable to demand scientific proof of a scientific hypothesis or of an assertion that the world works in such and such a say, but is unreasonable to except scientific proof of metaphysical and ontological assumptions and then reject metaphorical and ontological proofs on the grounds that they are not scientific. God is beyond our understanding. That means there is scientific proof because God is not a scientific question because God is not given in sense data. The atheist at this point dismisses the whole question as "made up," "imaginary" as though the only two choices in life are either imaginary or total absolute scientific proof. When you tell them there are other kinds of proof they laugh and mock and say "scientific is the only reliable way to know what's real." Not for areas that are not given in sense data. Science can only work in realms of empirical observation. Things that are beyond our empirical observation are not scientific questioned.

There are many such areas that science accepts as "scientific" and true (even though thy may have their detractors) even without scientific proof:

(1) Smoking was deemed harmful decades before a mechanism was discovered through which smoking causes cancer. Smoking was deemed a cause of cancer decades before there was any direct evidence based only on the tight correlation, which any atheist will point out in connection with a God argument is foolish and marks Christians as idiots for believing it.

(2) String theory is the hottest theory going no data. No objective empirical observations to back up string theory, tons of atheists are willing to talk about it as though ti's a  proved fact.

(3) consciousness is also in the same ball park.

The list would be huge, inflationary theory, a-causal principle in Quantum theory (there's data to back it but there are schools that interpret the data differently) Oscillating universe, Quantum tunneling, there's a huge list. Science doesn't take the lack of hard evidence as seriously as atheists do when it comes to God arguments. In fact atheists are down right anti-scientific when it comes to scientific data that supports a God hypothesis. Look at the way they mock and ridicule the hundreds of studies I talk about that show that religious experience is real, good for you and not related to mental illness. These studies are all from peer reviewed journals, some are from major figures in social science such as Abraham Maslow, and Hood data on the M scale (the basic lynch pin of the whole field of research) is one of the most strongly verified prices of social science research. Atheists are constrained dismissing that stuff like it's just garbage. They call it 'pseudo science" and they find the most trivial reasons to argue against it. The Atheists on CARM even made the argument that these studies must be bad because one researcher included some of them on a bibliography with a source by Depok Chopra. They didn't even to look at why she quoted Chopra. She could have said he's a fool and quoted him to show that he is, for all they knew. Of course being on a bib with that source has nothing to do with the way the studies are done, but these atheists were dancing around going "we disproved them we beat Metacrock, his studies are crap!" Because they share space on a bib with a source they don't like! O yea they are an excellent example of scientific integrity. It becomes obvious that the  demand scientific proof is just an ideolgoical ploy. Look at the way atheists refuse to accept that they part of a movement. There are a dozen national organizations that bring law suits on behalf of atheism they all say the same things, but they still try to argue that it's not a movement and it's not organized.

I refer to "opinion leaders" and to an organized movement that doesn't make it a conspiracy. There's nothing wrong with being in a movement. Feminism is a movement, and liberalism is a movement. I am part of both movement to some extent, and I don't seem them as conspiracies. There's nothing with being part of a movement, but atheists are loath to admit they are part of movement, they are scared to death to even admit a moment exists.This is becasue they have been taught an ideolgoical strategy that says "we don't have a movement." Just as it's obvious they do have one it's equally obvious that their insistence upon scientific proof is an ideological strategy. That move is not logical. It's only true function is propaganda. It's very off putting to a theist to be constantly bombarded by this demand and with the mystique of science in first world it becomes almost a shameful thing for a lot of people to even admit "God is not a scientific question." To a lot of people that's almost like admitting there can't be a God. That's because those people are in awe of the cultural capital science in a culture that isn't taught science very well. Those of us who study history and philosophy of science know better than to be intimidated by such a mindless ploy. Science is not the only form of knowledge, it is not the only way to know reality. God is not just another fact in the universe.

The scientific way of thinking objectifies reality. It reduces the real to a set of data and allows true aspect of the real to be lost between the cracks of empirical observation and reductionist loss of phenomena. Belief in God is not just adding a fact to the universe, it is a realization about the nature of one's place in being. God is the ground of being, not a big man in the sky, God is at the foundation of being, too basic to be part of scientific data, too transcendent to be reduced without losing phenomena. The ground for the search was never meant to be microscopes and telescopes, but the human the heart. It's a test of the wills one must give up the will to find God.


The smoking analogy is not  satisfying to me but I can see how it is apt in many ways. The addiction  aspect doesn't quite fit because some smokers want to quite and just  can't. But atheists are socialized into a cultural construct through  which they are, for want of a better term, "brain washed (socialized) by  an ideology. The problem it's not analogous to addiction because they  don't want to quite. It is analogs to smokers who don't want  to quite. Atheists don't' want to believe. Some struggle with belief and  maybe they do half want to believe, but their would be belief is  conditional upon finding the truth but only if they get it their way meaning, so totally proved they can't argue with it. That  is a trick of sin nature because it's an excuse not to view the good  evidence (of which there is a ton) in a positive light. That is the  glass half empty syndrome.

God is obvious to anyone who is  willing to accept the search and truly diligently searches. Because  belief in God is actually a realization about one's own relationship to  being.